Critical Success Factors of Sustainable Research Paper.pdf

International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering, ISSN(p): 2320-2092, ISSN(e): 2321-2071
Volume- 8, Issue-5, May.-2020, http://iraj.in
Critical Success Factors in Sustainable Project Management In China Pakistan Economic Corridor Project Pakistan
96
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN SUSTAINABLE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT IN CHINA PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR
PROJECT PAKISTAN
1
MUHAMMAD EMAD, 2
YI-HSIN LIN
1
Master Student, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
2
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
E-mail: 1
Emad.kingkhan@gmail.com, 2
yihsinlin@seu.edu.cn
Abstract - China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project has durable effects on economic, social and contextual
sustainability of a country. In the construction project’s life cycle, project management plays a vital role by incorporating
resources and stakeholders through different phases for the purpose of achieving sustainable project results. Construction
projects in Pakistan have got new dimensions in the construction industry, but success can be achieved if competitive
contractors are there. Among numerous management challenges, the choice of the CSFs in sustainable project management
has a deep effect on project success. Given that CSFs in Sustainable project management has a significant relationship with
outcomes such as firm effectiveness and based on resource based view theory. This research presents a CSFs effectiveness
model for investigating the effect of sustainable project management on the success of Construction Company, particularly
in the CPEC Pakistan context. Which is focus on three main factors namely, project organization structure, project
competitive strategy and project description which are tested. Around 51 experts from Chinese firm which work in different
departments and professions (Project manager, Project Engineer, Department Engineer, Civil Engineer, and QA/QC
Engineer) are asked to fill questionnaire form. The collected questionnaires were inspected for completeness and coded in
Statistical software (Version 21) for analysis. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the model for the
effect of the critical success factors in sustainable project management on firm Success. The analysis reveals that sustainable
project management shows 39 % variation in them. In addition the results supports the three model proposition having
consistent confidents for each proposition. This research applauds for additional research should be carried out in neighbor
countries to discover if this result is particular to the country of our study and to gain deeper insight into this relationship.
Keywords - Critical success factors (CSFs), Sustainable project management, Project Success, Project management, China
Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC).
I. INTRODUCTION
Over a century, there is a tradeoff between social
well-being and economic growth. (Dyllick and
Hockerts 2002). In worldwide contest, project success
is not only based on project management but also on
sustainable project management. The utmost
achievement of a business relay on its success.
Construction business is a hot research topic in all
business areas. Critical factors, like tangled
structures, broad architectural features, project size,
and other limitations, are primary concerns during the
life span of a project as they could decide the
consequences of the projects. Likewise, Project
management is also a complicated task and depends
on a number of factors for the contractor’s
competition. The primary achievements of any
project are its completeness (in terms of quality, time
and budget). Some secondary metrics are the nature
of the project, market-entry, and safety.
Determining vital factors and allocating enough
resources to them to get maximum outcome is an
important task. Finding the Critical success factors
can efficiently use inadequate resources including
money, time and labour-force. Although some studies
have revealed factors that affect the competitiveness
of an industry, their shortcomings are also
considerable. The factors suggested by (Liu and Tan
2011), are comprehensive but not applicable to
contractor competitiveness as no consideration about
construction industry’s features. To avoid loss and
save construction industry future it is essential to
determine the CSFs Thus, contractors must focus on
the critical features and parameters (duration, cost
and quality) to be competitive and successful in the
industry.
Many researchers converged their study to practices
at management level. (Christofferson 2001) studied
the housing industry in the United States. The factors
under consideration in their study are professional
skills, selection of skillful sub-contractors, sincerity,
selection of the deemed firms, time consideration
hiring criteria of the employees. (Kale and Arditi
2002), includes organization architecture,
associations, global resources, and competitive
approach also in the CSFs list yet the successful
delivery of sustainable community projects is a
significant issues for project managers.
This work focuses on CSFs for sustainable project
management at the construction organization. It is
vital to pinpoint these factors and implement them to
get maximum benefit and ultimately success in the
project. This work takes into account by studying
construction projects under Chinese contractors and
developing a checklist of CSFs for sustainable project
management so that the projects can be managed

97
competently and deliberately. The targeted
construction zone in CPEC Pakistan comprise of
Province of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Baluchistan, Azad Jammu Kashmir, and capital
territory. The interview was conducted from
contractors, Construction Engineers, Project and
construction managers of the firms. A qualitative
questionnaire research approach was applied, using
face to face survey-based research, involving 51
project management professionals of 24 Chinese
companies which are involved in different sectors in
Chinese Pakistan economic corridor CPEC Projects
in Pakistan.
This paper has five sections. Section 2 gives a
conceptual details about sustainable project
management, CSFs and mechanism for the CSFs and
project success. Section 3 devises the methodology
used in field research. Section 4 carried out an
analysis of the outcomes, and section 5 finalize this
study.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Sustainable project management
Recent research is directed on sustainable project
management. (Labuschagne, Brent, and van Erck
2005) designed a framework that can assess
manufacturing projects, having a focus on the product
life cycle in sustainable projects. (Brucker and
Macharis 2013) presented an approach for
stakeholder for the sake of multi-criteria analysis in
sustainable projects developments. According to
them, their approach can contribute to resolve social
conflicts under restrictions in sustainable
development. Likewise, (Arts and Faith-Ell 2012)
made comparisons of different approaches for
obtaining sustainability and formal enhancement of
infrastructure projects by combining green
procurement, partnerships, and sustainability.
The construction is a lengthy process and affects both
local and national contexts. According to (Wu and
Low 2010) green construction demands proper
planning and scheduling to achieve the desired
project results. Inline of (Atkinson 1999), (Shenhar et
al. 2001) a potential area in which sustainability is
effectively implemented is sustainable project
management. In the recent era, the attention has
shifted from current project objectives to broader
commercial benefits and a broader value dimension
more adaptable (Martinsuo and Killen 2014).
(Banihashemi et al. 2017) Put forward a list of CSF’s
for the integration of sustainability and project
management.
Sustainability is taken more in consideration than
other parameters while making decisions (Wu and
Pagell 2011). Throughout the implementation of the
project, data is kept up to date and decisions are
based on the selection of materials, in the process
phases and in energy consumption, resources that
manifest themselves in the final results of the project
(Kolltveit, Karlsen, and Grønhaug 2007). Previous
studies concentrated on project’s planning and design
(Boz and El-adaway 2015, Fernández-Sánchez and
Rodríguez-López 2010, Hwang and J 2012 ,Klakegg
2009, Shen et al. 2011). However, this sole
consideration on planning and design not enough; the
execution of the project is decisive for safeguarding
the sustainable project delivery.
In Pakistan sustainable project management is not
used widely. The result is impotent employing of
resources and time that lead to losses. Generally,
Sustainable project management is imperative in
nature for any project. So as the case for project
management in Chinese contractors, hence project
managers will effectively manage projects and reduce
cost and time in construction.
III. METHOD OF FINDING CSF’S AND
SUSTAINABLE INDICATORS (INDEX)
Many researchers encounter CSFs for project
management in industries and broad recognition of
the approaches used in previous studies. Although no
definite policy has been established for the finding
CSFs though, some previous studies have established
systematic procedures for finding the CSF (Shen and
Liu 2003), and (Chua, Kog, and Loh 1999).
There are five steps the procedure proposed are
presented in this study.
1. Determine a list of selected success factors in prior
Research.
2. Carry out survey to test SSFS by assigning specific
goals.
3. Evaluate index value for each factor from the
survey outcomes.
4. Extract the CSFs on the basis of important index.
5. Calculate and investigate the extracted CSFs.
In addition to CSF’s, some other criteria like the
selection of project managers, construction
companies need special attention for the success of
different stakeholders. Depending on the country,
technology, environment, and type of construction
projects, different authors have categorized various
factors as critical.
Some researchers identified four categories of factors,
including environmental effect, client satisfaction,
quality, and the expenditure and duration in
construction projects in developing countries
(Ferguson, Dadzie, and Johnston 2008). (Cooke-
Davies 2002) Recognized two success factors in his
study that are not people related. (Belout and
Gauvreau 2004) investigated that project success can
be based on significant parameter which is HRM.
Further, (Fortune and White 2006) deployed the

98
proper system model to know the project’s Critical
Success Factors whose performance was better than
the checklist approach. Five CSF’s are identified for
World Bank projects contain coordination, observing,
sketching, grooming, and organizational environment
(Ika, Diallo, and Thuillier 2012). Similarly, (Rockart
1979) introduced the critical success factor in 9
dimensions and explained them in more detail. (Yu
and Kwon 2011) specified in Korea four stages of
CSFs for urban renovation projects. (Alias et al.
2014) worked on the theoretical model and suggested
five variables for project success named Project
Management, Project Procedures, Human Factors,
External Issues and Project relevant Factors. Similary
in another study carried out by (Breesam and
Alzobaee 2016) twelve critical success and thirteen
critical failure factors for construction projects have
been determined.
IV. THEORIES ON FIRM COMPETITIVENESS
Although the definition of competitiveness is not of
great help in determining the SSF, the theories on the
competitiveness of companies are good and these
theories suggest potential areas for generating
competitiveness and get success in construction
projects. By scrutinizing these prospective areas, this
work is capable to enlist SSFs. Basically, two theories
exist for checking the competitiveness of industries.
Porter (Porter 1980) [quoted by Lu et al. (2008)
proposed the first theory that the competitive
advantage derives from the competitive strategies
adopted in response to the pros, cons, chances, and
threats faced by the organization. Recommend three
general competition policies: cost leadership,
variation, and consideration. Then he used the value
chain to break down the company into a series of
distinct value assets and suggest that the
implementation of a competitive strategy was
ultimately the source of competitive advantage.
Another theory of organizational competitiveness put
forward by (Barney 1991) which is a basic resource-
based approach. This shows that the company's
valuable, rare, irreplaceable and unique resources are
a source of competitive advantage. However, the pros
and cons of these two theoretical flows, the
researchers e.g. (Kale and Arditi 2002); (Dikmen
2003) argue that in explaining the competitiveness of
companies, they are complementary rather than
contradictory. These two theories deliver guidance to
determine the contender’s success factors for the
contractor’s competitiveness. The success factors of
an organization's competitive advantage should
include competitive strategy, valuable assets, and
company-specific resources.
V. PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUCCESS
CRITERIA
The success and failure of a project may be found
through the success criteria. (de Wit 1988), (Cooke-
Davies 2002). According to While (Turner 2008)
success should be demarcated as success principle
and the success factors should be identified.
According to Some researchers construction project
success is the measure of usefulness and competence
(Brudney and England, 1982; (de Wit 1988); (Pinto
and Covin 1989); Smith, 1998; (Belout 1998);
(Atkinson 1999); Crawford and Bryce, 2003 cited in
Takim and Adnan, 2008). Three things, cost, time and
specifications are usually referred in the literature as
iron triangle and considered as criteria for project
success. Still, in current research, the success criteria
have been prominently established.
Authors such as (Pinto and Covin 1989), (Andersen,
Dyrhaug, and Jessen 2002) ; (Diallo and Thuillier
2004); (Zwikael, Shimizu, and Globerson 2005);
(Thomas and Fernandez 2008); Niu, Lechler& Jiang
(2010) (Al-tmeemy, Abdul-Rahman, and Harun
2011) ; have determined many success factors on
various criteria like culture, countries and industries.
Yet, it’s impossible to set a criteria set of factors on
the basis of literature as there exists differences in
cultures and environment. Seven factors for success
have been defined by (Khan, Turner, and Maqsood
2013). These are: efficiency of the project (1)
Satisfactory Stakeholder (2) Client’s impact (3)
business success (4) Project sketch (5) Future
planning (6) impact of the team.
Therefore, project success of construction can be
observed as the level of efficiency of achievement
(short term perception) and effectiveness (long term
perception) aims of implementation of a project
(Wateridge, 1998 as cited in Baccarini, 1999).
(Serrador and Turner 2015) examined some extent
the relationship between project efficiency and
investor’s gratification and project success.
According to a study of 1,386 projects, efficiency
depends 60% on stakeholder satisfaction and 56% on
project success. (Kumara, B.N.F, and
HewapattuArachchige 2016) noted that there no
complete success for a project but apparent success.
(Beratan et al. 2004) The interlinked human-natural
systems make sustainability difficult to describe.
According to Beratan Resource Management,
Stakeholders Management, Technology, Project
Result are part of sustainable project management in
the inner context whereas the external aspects include
resource, waste, energy, pollution. Past researches
focused on the project’s sustainability of the exterior
context. Less research has been conducted on the
assessment index of internal sustainability in
construction project management in view of the

99
longstanding effects of the project on the team and
organization.
There are yet example of projects that surpasses their
budgets, timeline or deviate requirements. Afore
giving arguments about success factors, it’s most
important, to describe accurately the term ―success‖.
The project success includes the following aspects:
1- with in-budget.
2- with in-schedule.
3- No / or lesser conflicts.
4- Required Quality
5- Is used Modern Technologies
6- Required Safety
7- Achieves all the desired goals (Scope).
8- It is utilized and approved by the desired clients.
Integrated framework
From the literature it is clear that project CSFs are
necessary features of project management for
achieving success. CSFs if properly determined can
help measure project performance, outcomes and
correct allocation of resources (Chua, Kog, and Loh
1999; Cox et al, 2003 ; Yu and Kwon 2011).
A Resource Based View (RBV) presented by (Das
and Teng, 2000), highlights the value and
sustainability of creating a company's competitive
advantage by continuously accumulating and
operating precious resources (both tangible and
intangible). Particularly, (Ferguson, Dadzie, and
Johnston 2008) point out that as long as sustainable
project management reveals a cluster of four elements
i.e. customer satisfaction, environmental impact and
quality, cost and time.
We argue that the three CSFs in sustainable project
management dimensions (organization structure,
competitive strategy, and project description) are
valuable project management orientation that links
directly to individual aspects and link more strongly
to sustainable project management effectiveness. This
is related to the concept that organizations with large
resources are better than organizations that rely on a
single resource (Barney 1991).We further argue that
an integrated framework based on RBV could
provide a major contribution to the study and a
deeper understanding of the concept of CSFs and how
they influence firm effectiveness (see Fig 1).
Fig. 1 Integrated Framework
VI. HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
Considering the dependent and independent variables
and some research questions, few hypotheses can be
devised. (Zikmud W G (2002)., 62, 877-895),
described hypotheses as unverified assumptions and
propositions that explains certain sensations. In this
research, three Propositions have been formulated to
analyze the project critical success factors influence
on success.
Impacts of organization structure
The literature suggests that different types of project
organization structure have several effect on project
success. (Rockart 1979), investigate the role of
organization structure and suggested some specific
areas with positive outcomes may boost the
competitive performance of the organization
Structure. (Khan, Turner, and Maqsood 2013) have
determined five success factors for project success
and have implemented in their research on public
sector of Pakistan. These are listed here: Project
efficiency, organization structure, the impression of
the project, potential in future projects, satisfactory
stakeholders. While (Rockart 1979) has arranged
CSFs as, things which are mandatory if an
organization structure is to be successful. Based on
these arguments, we propose the following
proposition;
Proposition 1: Organization Structure have a positive
effect on firm success. A high level of organization
structure increases firm success.
Impacts of competitive strategy
(Kale and Arditi 2002), redefined the CSF’s list
including competitive strategy, relationships and
standard resources for a successful sustainable public
project. (Porter 1980) specified that firm’s success
depend on deliverables and projects on time but
failing the projects delivery lead serious damage to
business reputation. The construction firms should
get best experiences from others, to strengthen their
constant changing events, and stay competitive in the
industries. (Lu and Shen 2008) .Cluster 4’s CSF’s are
related to formulation and contractors for getting
maximum advantages. Strategic perspective and
planning in construction industries are vital
(Warszawski 1996; Betts and Ofori 1992). The
following propositions are being proposed based on
the competitive strategies, e.g. Competitive advantage
school (Porter 1980), Strategic planning school
(Ansoff 1984).
Proposition 2: Competitive Strategy have a positive
effect on firm success. A high level of competitive
strategy increases firm performance.

100
Impacts of project description
CSFs can assist the project managers to analyze
project achievements and results and distribute
project resources appropriately (Chua, Kog, and Loh
1999); Cox et al, 2003; (Yu and Kwon 2011). (Munns
and Bjeirmi 1996), (Atkinson 1999); (Lim and Zain
1999), investigate the project success through the
estimate critical success factors CSFs from eight case
studies of complex projects. Westerveld and Gaya-
walters (2001) have identified the category of project
success which is (project result) and project
organization. Because of difference in cultures and
environments, it’s impractical to present a criterion
applicable on any projects. However, based on
literature study the features of project success (Khan,
Turner, and Maqsood 2013) comprise project team
impact, client impact, project efficiency, project
description, stakeholder satisfaction, future
preparation. Due to these arguments, the given
propositions are proposed;
Proposition 3: Project description have a positive
effect on firm Success. A high level of project
description increases firm performance.
Econometric model for testing propositions
To check the hypothesis we used Ordinary Least
Squares (OLS) multiple linear regression analysis as
the estimators are unbiased (Wooldridge 2016). For
the satisfaction of OLS regression’s assumptions
different other regression diagnostics are also
required.
The White test (White 1980), was done to validate
whether the sample fulfil the homoscedasticity
assumption of the OLS regression. For specification
errors, the RESET test (Ramsey 1969) was conducted
to eliminate variables and non-linearity of functional
form. Equation 1 shows the empirical model for
testing of Propositions 1 to 3. The first four regressors
represents Control variables while the remaining are
hypothesized determinants of sustainable project
management variables. The empirical model is also
depicted as shown in Fig 2, where control variables
are ignored.
Firm Success = C + b1Type + b2Size +b3Location +
b4Experience + β1Organization Structure +
β2Competitive Strategy + β3Project Description + µ
(1)
Where C is the constant, 𝛽1 ~ 𝛽3 and b1 ~ b4 are the
regression coefficients and 𝜇 is a random disturbance.
The first four regressors are firm size, firm type, firm
location and length of service, and the last three
regressors are the CSFs in sustainable project
management determinants mentioned in propositions
One to three, respectively as shown in research frame
work.
VII. DATA
Survey research plays a vital role in social
investigation. Therefore, in this research we adopt the
survey approach to provide a quantitative description
by sampling frame included those CSF’s in
sustainable project management from the key projects
completed in CPEC Pakistan. In total, 24 Chinese
firms located all over in Pakistan were included in
our survey list between June 2018 to October 2018,
based on the literature review, it has been broadly
recognized that the feedback rate is being very low
mostly in construction management research.
Figure 2 The Diagram of the Econometric Model
In order to avoid this issue and maximize the
response rate, in this study, we have designed a
questionnaire survey to be ―respondent-friendly‖. The
questionnaire was distributed to participants who
recently completed their construction project. The
reason behind asking participants to refer to most
recently completed projects was that it would be
relatively easier for them to remember their
experiences because it would be still fresh in their
minds. Respondents held positions as operative
managers or higher-level employees who are in a
position to impact the sustainable project
management of the company.
Measurement of regression variables
Measurement of dependent variable Sustainable
project management (project success)
In this empirical study, the study defines ―Firm
Performance‖ on five-point Likert scales as a frugal
representation up to the extent of agreement or
disagreement of respondents with statements related
to describe the performance in the previous
constructions in which direct operational involvement
of the firm using 1 as ―strongly disagree‖, 2 as
―disagree‖, 3 as ―undecided‖, 4 as ―agree‖ and 5 as
―strongly agree‖. In 1) Project completion within
budget, 2) Project completion within the schedule, 3)

101
Achievement of the required quality, 4) Achievement
of the required quality, 5) Achievement of required
safety and 6) Modern technologies 7) Client
satisfaction. 8) No or lesser conflicts. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient is 0.68. According to Nunnally
(1978), the alpha having value 0.6 ensures the
credibility of a research mechanism, which makes all
the questions asked to the respondents concerning
firm performance are accepted, internally consistent
and the scale considered reliable for further analysis.
Firm performance is depicted as Likert-scaled ordinal
variables in this research. Ordinal variables measured
on Likert scales can be used as interval variables and
can be analyzed in OLS regression models although
they show deviation from the regression postulates of
interlude data.
Measurement of Independent Variables (CSFs)
Project organization resources
The variable in proposition 1 was utilized to verify
the influence of Sustainable project management in
firm Success, as specified in proposition 1. As
mentioned before, measuring organizational structure
relates to the organization’s dominant characteristics,
organization resources, resource management and
competitive strategy, marketing, technology and
project description evaluation of project and project
results and criteria for success. As a result, the survey
questions regarding this variable are:
(1) The financial stability of the organization
decreases its customer class. (2) The sustainable
development of human resources affects product
quality. (3) The financial resources are not managed
properly and planned may lead to project failure. (4)
A project is unlikely to be completed successfully
without a good leader. (5) Cultural influence directly
affects the project’s outcomes. (6) The history of the
firm is necessary to know its quality and its
productivity. (7) Proper financial management
reduces project risks. (8) The required goal is
important to achieve through the effective use of
capital investment.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient being 0.753 > 0.6
which makes all the questions asked to the
respondents concerning clan orientation are accepted,
internally consistent and the scale considered reliable
for further analysis.
Project competitive strategy
The variable in proposition 2 shows the impact of
project competitive strategy on firm success. The
survey questions regarding this variable are: 1) The
business coverage needs to be enhanced to gain more
customers, (2) The project should need to prior
identify all stakeholders and their needs (3) The Level
of I.T. application in a company should be on a need
basis. (4) The Use of technology in business make the
business growing rapidly, (5) The quality of work can
enhance through the adoption of new technology and
software for project management. (6) Does the
sustainable development of technology and R&D is
important to factor in business growth? (7) According
to stakeholders' feedback ensure project success
through optimizing project management. (8) The
project over budget through experiencing challenges
or innovation in the project.
respondents concerning adhocracy orientation are
accepted, internally consistent and the scale
considered reliable for further analysis.
Project description
The variable in proposition 3 can be used to test the
consequence of project competitive strategy on firm
success. The survey questions regarding this variable
are: 1) the experience project manager is vital to
successfully concluded the project in-time and with
in-budget. 2) Productivity is decreased means then
the project is under budget. 3) The last project we
were involved in was completed within budget. 4)
The team image builds them work heartily and
effectively through appreciating. 5) The regular
checking, assessing and testing project progress
ensures product quality. 6) The project is over budget
and time, due to increasing productivity. 7) Client
Satisfaction is more important for a company’s
image. 8) Advantages and losses are regularly
analyzed periodically to predict the next desired
activity.
respondents concerning hierarchy orientation are
accepted, internally consistent and the scale
considered reliable for further analysis.
Control variables
To check the hypothesis four control variables were
used which can hook up with the hypothesis variable.
Firm type (nominal scale), where ―1‖ indicates
building construction contractor, ―2‖ indicates civil
engineering contractor, ―3‖ indicates design office,
―4‖ indicates engineering office and ―5‖ indicates soil
testing lab. Firm size (ordinal scale), where we
indicate the number of employees. Firm location
(nominal scale), where ―1‖ indicates Khyber
PakhtunKhwa, ―2‖ indicates Punjab, ―3‖ indicates
Sindh and ―4‖ indicates Azad Jammu Kashmir
Pakistan and ―5‖ indicates Baluchistan.. Length of
service (ordinal scale), where we indicate the number
of years the respondent has worked in the
organization.

102
VIII. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Robustness of OLS Regression Analysis
Various regression diagnostics have been done
confirm that OLS assumptions are fulfilled. The
assumptions being multicollinearity problems,
specification errors, and heteroscedasticity. Table 1
depicts correlation among regressors. The OLS
postulate about no-multicollinearity is inspected
through Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test.The high
VIF got in our models was 2.07 that is considerably
below 5, above 5 multicollinearity is considered high
(Ryan 1997).
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Regression Variables
The linearity assumption for OLS was checked with
Ramsey RESET. The F-statistic of RESET came
outto be 0.43 and a p-value of 0.51. The results
indicate that the functional form problem may be
ignored.
White test was done to check the homoscedasticity
postulation for OLS. The F-statistic of the test was
2.12 having a p value 0.04; thus, the
homoscedasticity assumption would be considered
high. The sample is enough for factor analysis if
KMO’s value is greater than 0.5 and the Bartlett’s test
of Sphericity gives 0.05 value (Varma, 2013). In our
work the first value is 0.671 > 0.5 while the later is P
< 0.001 which is suitable for factor analysis.
Empirical results of hypothesis tests
The two regression steps of the analysis is shown in
Table 2. The first step creates the baseline of the
regression model taking into account only control
variables, ―Model 1‖ shown in Table 2. In second
step, the entire model, ―Model 2‖ is created as in
Table 2, where hypothesized determinants of
Sustainable project management are included to the
baseline model. In Equation 1 the R2
, Adj.R2
, and F-
value of Model 1 are 0.20, 0.13, and 2.88,
accordingly. The figures show that control variables
have less impacts on firm performance. Hence, the
use of control variables in Model 2 make changes in
R2 and Adj. R2 of Model 2.
According to Model 2, the F-value is 5.69, showing
level of significance well under 0.1%; so, the work
castoffs the null hypothesis that the three proposition
variables are affectless on firm Success.
Besides, R2
get value 0.48 and Adj. R2
is 0.39, which
are much high in Model 2, in contrast to the literature,
for instance, the study of (Muhammad Imran Majeed
2018/6), explored the influence of Project
Management Success Factors’ performance of
Pakistan private sector with a size 297 and R
correlations between variables is .577*** with p
value is (.000) which is high degree of correlation
among variables and R2
has got value 0.33 while Adj.
R2
is 0.331. Both the values are bigger than empirical
studies.
Relative importance of sustainable project
management determinants
Are the three determinants (Project Organization
Resources, Project Competitive Strategy, and Project
Description) affect equally the firm success? Most
likely not. The effects of three determinants are tough
to be noticed in the theoretic development. Still, the
evidence of the study can be used to find comparative
effects of these elements on firm success.
From the results of Model 2, it can be deduced that
―Project Organization Resources, Project Competitive
Strategy, and Project Description‖ have a positive

103
effect on firm success having coefficients 0.04, 0.26
and 0.17 respectively. This finding is coherent with
(Shrair (2011)). In their study about studying the
links between Project organization structure,
Competitive Strategy, and project description in the
Gaza Strip Construction industry, they concluded,
that CSFs in sustainable project management affect
performance. More specifically, ―Project
Organization Resources, Project Competitive
Strategy, and Project Description‖ have a positive
effect on project success.
Table 2 Results of OLS Regression Analyses
Extensions of descriptive statistics of regression
variables
In Table 2, some observations are deemed to be
analyzed further. Although the observations have no
direct relation to empirical evidence, yet give
awareness about the model and its usage in practice.
These perceptions are about logical implications of
the data in the tested model, and could researched in
future.
First, if we take correlations of regression variables
range for ―Firm Success‖ most CSFs in sustainable
project management orientation detected is
―organizational structure‖ with 4.23 which means, the
organization structure is likely the sustainable profile
would foster the firm success with in Chinese
construction firm in CPEC project Pakistan. It is true
that the ―organization structure‖ has the acquisition of
competitiveness and goal accomplishment, where
employees are embolden to set difficult goals and
struggle to achieve them.
Second, ―Size of organization‖ has the highest mean
value of 4.59, indicating that the majority of
respondents have worked at their organizations for a
good period and employees are perfect for the
organization, which points at their perfect satisfactory
colleague with the sustainable project management
adopted by their organization.
Third, in the OLS regression analysis part, Adj.R2
was equal to 0.39 which indicates that 39% of the
variance of the firm success can be predicted by the
independent variables (organization structure,
competitive strategy and project description).
Whereas, 61% of the variance of other factors not
included in this model influence as well the firm
success. Therefore, further study should be conducted
to explain other factors that influence the firm
success. (Ika, Diallo, and Thuillier 2012) worked on
World Bank projects and found that five CSFs i.e.
institutional context, monitoring, coordination, design
and training, based on market direction, are necessary
for sustainable innovation success. CSFs in
sustainable project management is orientation is the
key factor to increase the innovative organization
success.
Fourth, this study provides researchers with a sound
explanation of the effect of CSFs in sustainable
project management on firm success; the research
findings of this research confirm the fact that the
relationship among CSFs in sustainable project
management and firm success does exist and the
constructs are highly correlated. As well as, this
research provides researchers with a critical empirical
evidence for evaluating the relationship among CSFs
in sustainable project management and firm success
which has concluded that the organization structure,
competitive strategy and project description are
associated with better performance.
Moreover, this study provides practitioners a set of
concepts to know the exact list of CSFs in sustainable
project management that can foster their firm success.
In fact, the research indicates that the higher the level

104
of sustainable project management profile, higher the
level of success in the Chinese firm in CPEC project.
Thus, these results could be useful for Chinese
construction firms in cultivating the right sustainable
project that is expected to foster their firm
effectiveness, so it will help in devising the success
criteria and obtaining a checklist of CSFs in future
projects throughout the developing countries.
IX. CONCLUSION
This research investigates the consequence of CSFs
in sustainable project management on firm success in
CPEC Pakistan and proposes an integrated model for
the choice of right sustainable project management
profile to cultivate in order to foster the firm success.
Particularly in construction sector that is considered
to be essential to the economic development and
growth of a country. In the econometric, we
empirically tested a model of the effect of the
sustainable project on firm success. According to the
OLS regression results, the study concludes that
organization structure, competitive strategy and
project description have 39% effect on the deviation
of firm success. Essentially, results obtained from this
research intensely support all the model propositions.
The results of the regression lighten the importance of
the model variables, even though the significance of
the design variables vary considerably across
different projects, based on the project’s context and
feature.
Future work includes employing case study method
combining the strengths of the case study and the
econometric method make them complement of each
other. Econometric analysis can be used to employ
hard study procedure and for more data. On the other
hand, case study investigates the rationales in the
statistical relations got through econometric model.
Combining the models would affect CSFs in
sustainable project management on project success
and the model will be improved and well supported.
Lastly, another area that was out of the scope of this
study is a comparison among CSFs in sustainable
project management, performance for managers and
employees. Different parties may have several
impressions of the three hypothesized determinants,
thus, it is possible that the two groups may show
different results. This research focuses on Chinese
firm in CPEC Pakistan that will help in devising the
success criteria and obtaining a checklist of CSFs in
future projects throughout the developing countries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial supports from National Natural Science
Foundation of China (71573037) is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCE
[1] Al-tmeemy, Samiaah, Hamzah Abdul-Rahman, and Zakaria
Harun. 2011. 'Future criteria for success of building projects
in Malaysia', International Journal of Project Management,
29: 337-48.
[2] Alias, Zarina, E. M. A. Zawawi, Khalid Yusof, and N. M.
Aris. 2014. 'Determining Critical Success Factors of Project
Management Practice: A Conceptual Framework', Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153: 61-69.
[3] Andersen, Erling, QinliDyrhaug, and Svein Jessen. 2002.
'Evaluation of Chinese projects and comparison with
Norwegian projects', International Journal of Project
Management, 20: 601-09.
[4] Arts, Jos, and Charlotta Faith-Ell. 2012. 'New Governance
Approaches For Sustainable Project Delivery', Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48: 3239-50.
[5] Atkinson, Roger. 1999. 'Project Management: Cost, Time and
Quality, Two Best Guesses and a Phenomenon, Its Time to
Accept Other Success Criteria', International Journal of
Project Management, 17: 337-42.
[6] Banihashemi, Saeed, M. Reza Hosseini, HamedGolizadeh,
and Shankar Sankaran. 2017. 'Critical success factors (CSFs)
for integration of sustainability into construction project
management practices in developing countries', International
Journal of Project Management, 35: 1103-19.
[7] Barney, Jay. 1991. 'Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage', Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
[8] Belout, Adnane. 1998. 'Effects of human resource
management on project effectiveness and success: Toward a
new conceptual framework', International Journal of Project
[9] Belout, Adnane, and ClothildeGauvreau. 2004. 'Factors
influencing project success: the impact of human resource
management', International Journal of Project Management,
22: 1-11.
[10] Beratan, Kathi K., Stanley J. Kabala, Shirley M. Loveless,
Paula J. S. Martin, and Nancy P. Spyke. 2004. 'Sustainability
Indicators as a Communicative Tool: Building Bridges in
Pennsylvania', Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
94: 179-91.
[11] Boz, Mehmet, and Islam El-adaway. 2015. 'Creating a
Holistic Systems Framework for Sustainability Assessment of
Civil Infrastructure Projects', Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 141: 04014067.
[12] Breesam, Hatem, and Salam Alzobaee. 2016. 'Critical
Success Factors in Construction Projects (Governmental
Projects as a Case Study)', 22: 129-47.
[13] Brucker, Klaas, and Cathy Macharis. 2013. 'Multi-criteria
analysis and the resolution of sustainable development
dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach', European
Journal of Operational Research, 224: 122–31.
[14] Christofferson, Mark Hutchings and Jay. 2001. "Factors
leading to construction company success: perceptions of
small-volume residential contractors." In ASC Proceedings of
the 42nd Annual Conference.
[15] Chua, D., Y. C. Kog, and P. Loh. 1999. 'Critical Success
Factors for Different Project Objectives', Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management-asce - J
CONSTR ENG MANAGE-ASCE, 125.
[16] Cooke-Davies, Terry. 2002. 'The ―real‖ success factors on
projects', International Journal of Project Management, 20:
185-90.
[17] de Wit, Anton. 1988. 'Measurement of project success',
International Journal of Project Management, 6: 164-70.
[18] Diallo, Amadou, and Denis Thuillier. 2004. 'The success
dimensions of international development projects: The
perceptions of African project coordinators', International
[19] Dikmen, Irem ;Birgonul, M. Talat. 2003. "Organizational
effectiveness in construction - A conceptual framework." In
ARCOM 19th Annual Conference. University of Brighton,
UK (pp. 523-532).

105
[20] Dyllick, Thomas, and Kai Hockerts. 2002. 'Beyond the
business case for corporate sustainability', Business Strategy
and the Environment, 11: 130-41.
[21] Ferguson, Jodie, Kofi Dadzie, and Wesley Johnston. 2008.
'Country-of-origin effects in service evaluation in emerging
markets: Some insights from five West African countries',
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23: 429-37.
[22] Fernández-Sánchez, Gonzalo, and Fernando Rodríguez-
López. 2010. 'A methodology to identify sustainability
indicators in construction project management—Application
to infrastructure projects in Spain', Ecological Indicators, 10:
1193-201.
[23] Fortune, Joyce, and Diana White. 2006. 'Framing of project
critical success factors by a systems model', International
[24] Hwang, Bon-Gang, and Tan J. 2012. Sustainable Project
Management for Green Construction: Challenges, Impact,
and Solutions.
[25] Ika, Lavagnon A., Amadou Diallo, and Denis Thuillier. 2012.
'Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An
empirical investigation', International Journal of Project
[26] Kale, Serdar, and David Arditi. 2002. 'Competitive
Positioning in United States Construction Industry', Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management-asce - J
CONSTR ENG MANAGE-ASCE, 128.
[27] Khan, Khalid, Rodney Turner, and Tayyab Maqsood. 2013.
Factors that influence the success of public sector projects in
Pakistan.
[28] Klakegg, Ole. 2009. 'Pursuing relevance and sustainability:
Improvement strategies for major public projects',
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2.
[29] Kolltveit, Bjørn, Jan Karlsen, and KjellGrønhaug. 2007.
'Perspectives on project management', International Journal
of Project Management - INT J PROJ MANAG, 25: 3-9.
[30] Kumara, Silva, Warnakulasooriya B.N.F, and Bhadra
HewapattuArachchige. 2016. Criteria for Construction
Project Success: A Literature Review.
[31] Labuschagne, Carin, Alan C. Brent, and Ron P. G. van Erck.
2005. 'Assessing the sustainability performances of
industries', Journal of Cleaner Production, 13: 373-85.
[32] Lim, C. S., and Mohamed Zain. 1999. 'Criteria of project
success: An exploratory re-examination', International
[33] Liu, Ping, and Shukui Tan. 2011. 'A Survey of Study on the
Competitiveness of China Ship Enterprise', Procedia
Engineering, 16: 170-76.
[34] Lu, Weisheng, and Liyin Shen. 2008. 'Critical Success
Factors for Competitiveness of Contractors: China Study',
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-asce -
J CONSTR ENG MANAGE-ASCE, 134.
[35] Martinsuo, Miia, and Catherine Killen. 2014. 'Value
Management in Project Portfolios: Identifying and Assessing
Strategic Value', Project Management Journal, 45.
[36] Muhammad Imran Majeed, Sahar Munir. 2018/6. 'Impact of
Project Management Success Factors: A Case of Pakistani
Private Sector', European Journal of Business and
Management, 10.
[37] Munns, A. K., and B. F. Bjeirmi. 1996. 'The role of project
management in achieving project success', International
[38] Pinto, Jeffrey, and Jeffrey Covin. 1989. 'Critical factors in
project implementation: A comparison of construction and
R&D projects', Technovation, 9: 49–62.
[39] Pinto, Jeffrey, and S. J. Jr. 1990. 'The Causes of Project
Failure', Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,
37: 269-76.
[40] Porter, Michael E. 1980. Competitive strategy : techniques
for analyzing industries and competitors (Free Press: New
York).
[41] Ramsey, James. 1969. 'Test For Specification Errors in
Classical Linear Least Squares Regression Analysis', Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 31.
[42] Rockart, John. 1979. 'Chief Executives Define Their Own
Data Needs', Harvard business review, 57: 81-93.
[43] Ryan, T. Y. . (1997) 'Modern regression analysis, Wiley, '.
[44] Serrador, Pedro, and Rodney Turner. 2015. 'The Relationship
Between Project Success and Project Efficiency', Project
Management Journal, 46.
[45] Shen, Geoffrey, and Guiwen Liu. 2003. 'Critical Success
Factors for Value Management Studies in Construction',
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-asce -
J CONSTR ENG MANAGE-ASCE, 129.
[46] Shen, Li-Yin, Jorge Ochoa, Mona Shah, and Xiaoling Zhang.
2011. 'The application of urban sustainability indicators – A
comparison between various practices', Habitat International,
35: 17-29.
[47] Shenhar, Aaron, DovDvir, Ofer Levy, and Alan Maltz. 2001.
'Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept',
Long Range Planning, 34: 699-725.
[48] Shrair, Amani Nasser Eyd (2011). 'Improving Bidders
Competitiveness Strategies in Construction Projects - Gaza
Strip'.
[49] Thomas, Graeme, and Walter Fernandez. 2008. 'Success in IT
projects: A matter of definition?', International Journal of
Project Management - INT J PROJ MANAG, 26.
[50] Turner, J. R. 2008. 'The handbook of project-based
management: leading strategic change in organizations',
Annals of Physics, 54.
[51] White. 1980. 'A heteroskedasticity‐consistent covariance
matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity',
Econometrica, 48: 237-68.
[52] Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2016. 'Introductory Econometrics: A
Modern Approach, 6th Ed.'.
[53] Wu, Peng, and Sui Low. 2010. 'Project Management and
Green Buildings: Lessons from the Rating Systems', Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
- J PROF ISSUE ENG EDUC PRACT, 136.
[54] Wu, Zhaohui, and Mark Pagell. 2011. 'Balancing Priorities:
Decision-Making in Sustainable Supply Chain Management',
Journal of Operations Management, 29: 577-90.
[55] Yu, Jung-Ho, and Hae-Rim Kwon. 2011. 'Critical success
factors for urban regeneration projects in Korea',International
[56] Zikmud W G, BabinCarr, J C and Griffin, M (2010), Perez,
L. M., & Smith, P. C. (2002)., 62, 877-895. ' Revising the JDI
Work
[57] Satisfaction subscale: Insights into stress and control.
Educational and Psychological Measurement'.
[58] Zwikael, Ofer, Kazuo Shimizu, and ShlomoGloberson. 2005.
'Cultural differences in project management capabilities: A
field study', International Journal of Project Management, 23:
454-62


Critical Success Factors of Sustainable Research Paper.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Critical Success Factors of Sustainable Research Paper.pdf

Similar to Critical Success Factors of Sustainable Research Paper.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Critical Success Factors of Sustainable Research Paper.pdf